UK May Reconsider COICA-Like Plan To Have ISPs Censor Websites Deemed Infringing

Film Shot With Canon 7D Bought For $4 Million At Sundance

from the change-is-in-the-air dept

Wed, Feb 2nd 2011 7:01pm — Mike Masnick

Last summer, we wrote about a short film that was shot entirely with a DSLR camera, a Pentax K-7. Lately, we've been talking about when a feature film is going to be shot with a smartphone. In the interim, however, comes the news that not only was the indie flick Like Crazy shot entirely with a Canon 7D DSLR, but it's been sold to Paramount for $4 million at Sundance. When we've talked in the past about how the tools of filmmaking are getting cheaper and more powerful every day, we always get some folks who brush it aside, and make some sort of elitist statement about how such "low end" cameras can "never" make a quality film that will show in theaters. It would appear that at least some folks in Hollywood disagree.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: dslr, movie, sundance, tools

48 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:14pm

Cameras are merely tools to be used for many things, including creative endeavors. While I rather doubt the current iteration of consumer and pro-sumer cameras will anytime soon replace film industry cameras, eventually a digital camera will be developed that will relegate the current crop of film-based cameras to the dustin of history, just like vinyl replaced wax in Edison's day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re:
  I don't think they real key to these cameras is that the big players in the industry will adopt them. There are better digital film cameras like the RED One. The key is that the current generation of DSLRs lets the talented folks in the indie crowd make films that quality-wise compete with the major players.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:49pm
  
  Re:
  You have it right. It isn't the tools, it's the person using them. Someone who has a talent for making movies can make a great movie on just about anything, and a horrible film marker can make nothing but junk with millions of dollars of equipment.
  
  The point I tend to make about the "cheaper to make a movie" is that more people do it that just don't have the talent. You end up with more movies (massive leap in techdirt style innovation and creativity) but in reality you just end up with more junk.
  
  So it isn't the tools, it's the person using them. Too bad that too many of them are just tools, like the things they use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You also end up with better movies, a lot of junk is educational material on how not to do something and like the film industry people learn how to fallow a certain standard.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:59pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Okay Eisenstein, so we should only let professionals make movies? Create content? Because you're afraid of some noise?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 3:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No they are afraid of the bell curve that says. the lower 16.5% of the movies will be total crap, the center 66% will be crap to average to good, the upper 16.5% will be good enough to view. In the upper 16.5% you will find a ton of jems.
      
      Just like the 5 million bands on MySpace are competition to the record labels. The billions of people with Cameras in their cell phones scare them. The same bell curve applies.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:26pm
    
    Re: Re:
    While you will end up with a larger amount of crap being made, there is a *lot* of excellent work being done by amateur filmmakers. These folks wouldn't be able to afford to spend millions on their projects, and I'd much rather have good tools available to them than not. If you can make a great movie with a webcam, you should be even better with access to proper equipment. Remember, not all skilled artists are professionals inside the mainstream movie industry.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    You end up with more movies (massive leap in techdirt style innovation and creativity) but in reality you just end up with more junk.
    Hmmmm *checks latest cinema film list* I'm not totally convinced that more film makers will affect the relative percentage of "junk" (rather than the absolute number of rubbish films). That pre-supposes that those (or a large percentage on those) made now are not junk and "junk" is a personal opinion.
    
    I don't think I could point to more than 1/2 a dozen films in cinemas in the last couple of years that I'd move outside that category, though to be fair some would come into the "entertaining junk" sub-category. Saying "more film makers means more trash" seems a little snobbish to me. I wouldn't like to try and predict the effect, but I'd consider it equally likely that status quo is maintained and hold a hope that more competition for people's attention might even force the mean-point of "worth-watchingness" a little higher.
    
    (Disclaimer: There are probably more than 6 "good" films in the last 2 years but I don't spend my life watching films - 6 represents maybe 10%-ish of films watched that were made in that time though lets face it some you know are trash without having to watch them. Also "good" is my opinion, not necessarily anyone elses.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 7:57am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When you have a higher bar to entry, not everyone tries to make a movie. The ones trying to make movies are much more dedicated to the idea, and are willing to take risks (financial and other) to get there.
      
      When you remove the risk, everyone can make a movie. That means you need limited skills, no understanding of framing, shooting style, writing, plot development, or any of that stuff, because well, it's "FREE!". Doubly so if you pirated the editing software and borrowed the camera from Dad.
      
      The end result? Lots of video shot, little of it useful. Much more noise, not much more signal.
      
      As for "what is good", it is all relative. The President's Speech is a movie that can put me to sleep. However, it is a very high quality movie, great dialog, amazing filmography, great sets, great costumes, etc. It is an amazing period piece. It would put me to sleep within minutes. But I can appreciate that it isn't junk. I might not like the signal above the noise, but I can tell the difference between what is and what is not.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The end result? Lots of video shot, little of it useful. Much more noise, not much more signal.
        
        And so what?
        
        I like the idea of letting the market sort out what is signal and what is noise as opposed to some executive deciding what is fit for my media consumption.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Not an electronic Rodent, 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The end result? Lots of video shot, little of it useful. Much more noise, not much more signal.
        which exactly goes to my point about snobbishness - or elitism if you prefer. It's not like much of that isn't already there in Youtube or similar. It's already free to make films, the change is that cheap good equipment allows the quality of the good ones among them to rise above the rest to truly rival the "studio produced" content. I've seen some compelling amateur content that had it had more budget would have been easily of "quality prodution" enough to be shown in a cinema for example and it's undeniable there's a market for "entertaining trash".
        As for "what is good", it is all relative. The President's Speech is a movie that can put me to sleep.
        Which is pretty much exactly what I said. But are you to claim that one example (that in this case might come into the "Well done but boring - there's quite a few over the years I could put in this category) negates me saying that a reasonable percentage of "hollywood" film output released in cinemas shows no better production value entertaining or not?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 5:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    The old "signal-to-noise-ratio" canard.
    
    Only professionals can save us now!!!!!!!!!!!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - abc gum, 3 Feb 2011 @ 5:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Someone who has a talent for making movies can make a great movie on just about anything"
    
    Clearly, there are not enough of these types of people.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chris Rhodes (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 6:09am
    
    Re: Re:
    in reality you just end up with more junk
    
    Yeah, we're lucky we have the professionals in Hollywood around to show us what non-junk movies look like . . .
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 3 Feb 2011 @ 5:51am
  
  Re:
  You imply that big industry movies are still shot on film, I was unaware of this. Does anyone know what medium is used in present day movies?
  
  Film as a medium occupies a much smaller percentage of the still photography market, but it remains useful and is not going away anytime soon.
  
  There are those who claimed digital had replaced vinyl much like cars replaced horses ... and yet vinyl still hangs around - go figure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 8:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Panavision, the company behind the majority of cameras used for movie making by the major studios, is to my knowledge the camera of choice, and most of these cameras use 35mm and 65mm emulsion film by Kodak with, I believe, a max ISO of 320 balanced for tungsten light.
    
    Panavision has begun to offer digital counterparts, but the transition from film to digital is not as yet complete, and it will be likely several years before film ceases to be the recording medium of choice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - brett newton, 24 Apr 2011 @ 1:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    studio movies are slowly being shot less and less on 35mm. Alot are now shooting on the Red... and soon it'll be even less shooting on 35mm. With all the new technology coming out, also the demand for 3d digital is their mode of choice now.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 7:18am
  
  Re:
  This answer demonstrates your lack of knowladge on the new DSLR cameras. Not only do they match digital quality but optical performance from photographic lenses are more than matched.
  
  In the hands of a talendted film maker a DSLR can be just as powerful as other cameras. Maybe even more powerful since now the director has more budget to blow on using real cars and real stuff for explosions and special effects instead of purchasing expensive and bulky cameras and film.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:16pm

Yet another thing on my timeline ... 2 years early
I have a time line of future events for the Movie Studios based on the history of what the record labels have done over the past 30 years. One of them is locking up content to prevent new competition. A year and a half ago I put down "Studios begin purchasing movies shot on high end home cameras in an attempt to prevent competition". The time choosen was 2 years from now. Now while I don't know if this is a good film or not. I also don't know if this was to prevent competition. It has happened so half of it has come true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:20pm
  
  Re: Yet another thing on my timeline ... 2 years early
  hit submit instead of preview ...
  
  If the film is shelved we will know the second half is true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:29pm

The video on the 5D Mark II is some of the best quality ever to come out of a 'video camera'. An entire episode of House was filmed with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:32pm
  
  Re:
  In three to four years that will be in your cell phone or pad.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it will not. The laws of physics governing camera optics mean there is a limit to how small you can make a camera with image quality like the 5D mark ii. Unless you mean phones will weigh a kilogram in a couple years.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:48pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I understand physics, there are all sorts of tricks you can do with light. Here is what is currently being sold and the future ...
      
      Look at Sony's Exmor R video camera for cell phones currently at 1080P and 16 MP resolution. The new ones in the works are smaller and at higher resolutions (24, 32, 48 MP).
      
      In the futre you will see tech like this working its way into cameras ...
      
      Look at what they are doing with "IC chip manufacturer and liquid immersion for photomasks" where the wavelength can be shortened and compressed onto higher resolution CCD or CMOS style devices.
      
      Or maybe they will use nano dots, like they are working on for solar cells, laid on top of the CCD it self.
      
      The future is so bright, I have to wear shades, I'm on my camel ... hand me that high res video of some straw.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - crade (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are forgetting the progress deadlocking patent system.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 4 Feb 2011 @ 9:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        However, the sensor size will always be a problem. I'm sure you're aware of it, but just to point out, the smaller the sensor, the grainier the image you get (at least in anything other than bright sunlight). Even with the .4" sensor typical in a point and shoot, there is quite a lot of noise when shooting indoors.
        
        This is not a problem that can be surmounted by further miniaturization, because you can't shrink the photons hitting the sensor. To get a better image/video without sacrificing either resolution or speed, you just flat need a bigger sensor. That's why it's going to be very very difficult, if possible at all, to get really high quality video from a smartphone in anything short of full daylight.
        
        That assumes you can overcome the lens size issue, maybe with something like folded optics or other tricks. I think that problem is solvable in the medium to long term.
        
        However, the question then becomes, how good is good enough? Even if the video is not as good as what you can get from a good DSLR, could it be good enough for a feature film? Maybe it can.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If you are talking about the optics. Its the diameter of the lenses. That break down to a combination of the surface smoothness of the material, the clarity or purity, the index of refraction of the material, and the surface reflection. All that is gettting better all the time. Personally I will not mind a dime sized lens on the back of my cell phone to shoot better pictures and video than the Canon 7D DLSR.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Hephaestus (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        DSLR
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:23pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Physics can be bypassed by software in movies.
      
      Also microscopic multi-lens can create a better image then a single lens not to mention meta-materials, that violates most of the laws of physics in optics.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - khalifa alzayani, 22 Aug 2012 @ 3:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Mate,
      Everything that technology has done to date has bested and broken laws of what we thought was possible due to elements of physics of and thought pattern of pessimist such as yourself. God knows what the future holds, but what thing that i can say for certain is that there is no limit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 7:49pm

DSLR cameras are quickly becoming a favorite tool in the indie film-making world.
You can shoot 1080p video, which is within 6% of the resolution of the digital projectors used in most theaters, including IMAX.
You have a large sensor roughly equivalent to Super 35mm film for APS-C cameras like the 7D (or Vistavision film on Full Frame cameras like the 5D mark ii). This lets you shoot in low light and get a shallow Depth of Field, which feels more filmic.
There is a wide selection of lenses to be had for relatively low cost, between $100 to a few thousand, thanks to the still photography market.
The Canon 5D mark ii was used to shoot entirety of the season 6 finale of House MD, which normally uses 35mm film.
I myself used the same model to shoot a short film in a single day using only what was already at hand. It was the best-looking film at the local festival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grrooppyy, 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:51pm

high schools now doing film projects, and they are shooting from canon 7D, the cool kid director creating concept like the music videos at sites. just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Spaceman Spiff (profile), 2 Feb 2011 @ 8:55pm

It's not your old kodak any more
The 7D and similar cameras today often have full-frame 35mm imagers and are capable of shooting HD 1080p video using any lens that will fit the camera, including ones with image stabilization capabilities. Honestly, to get a regular video camera of that quality, you'd pay thousands $$ more, most likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 3 Feb 2011 @ 6:01am
  
  Re: It's not your old kodak any more
  The 7D sensor is APS-C, not full frame
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
grrooppyy, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:19pm

your cp is more expensive than 7D mr hephaestus.lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 2 Feb 2011 @ 9:56pm

What About The Camera EULA?
These cameras that include MPEG-4/H.264 codecs and the like often come with an EULA saying the patents on those codecs are only licensed to you for �personal� or �non-commercial� use. Wonder if MPEG-LA will come after this filmmaker for a further royalty cut?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Feb 2011 @ 10:30pm
  
  Re: What About The Camera EULA?
  Possible if they want an outrage on their hands, though I suspect they will refrain from going after professional users of DSLR cameras specifically for the camera hardware patent. Now if they release their film in h.264 online or in Bluray format...that's another story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Nick, 3 Feb 2011 @ 6:47am
  
  Re: What About The Camera EULA?
  I have a dSLR camera and I never signed or agreed to any contract. I doubt that would hold up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2011 @ 12:09am

am I the only one thinking what makes a good movie is the editing and NOT the camera?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan Bernitt, 20 Sep 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Response to: Anonymous Coward on Feb 3rd, 2011 @ 12:09am
  Not only does a film need solid editing, but solid writing, too.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles Scalfani (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 7:19am

Hollywood doesn't care
No one in Hollywood cares what the film is shot on. They only care about the stars that are in a film.

A film shot on 70mm with NO stars wouldn't even get into Sundance, let alone, picked up by Paramount.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChWhit, 10 Mar 2011 @ 11:38am
  
  Re: Hollywood doesn't care
  Winter's Bone...never heard of any of those actors. Sundance winner.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 3 Feb 2011 @ 9:12am

Well I should hope this film would be bought right away, look how well Avatar did for them, and it was only 3D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
roguerye, 24 Feb 2011 @ 11:17pm

7D
I own a 7D...and like it alot. Shooting a feature film on it you need alot of support gear, great lenses, lighting crew, great sound....and great script-actors to deliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 23 May 2011 @ 12:09am
  
  Re: 7D
  Great sound is cheap nowdays too. Portable digi recorders retail from $100 and sound amazing. I have a 7D and Zoom H4N. For lighting I use 3 security floodlights I got for $20. They have a light adjuster on them which makes them perfect.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zander, 21 Mar 2011 @ 3:07pm

The Social Network was entirely shot on The RED. Somewhere around 50,000 dollar camera shoots on RAW video. (The highest quality) and can techinically see more light than the human eye.

They are also going to release The Scarlet, a much more affordable version of the RED which technology will still be unmatched in its price range by any other digital video product at 6,000 dollars or so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cal, 26 Oct 2011 @ 9:02pm

Canon 60D
Hey guys, where can I get this $4 million? :-D My web series, Day Zero, was shot entirely on a Canon 60D, except for a tiny portion on my pilot episode was 7D. Check it out: http://blip.tv/dayzerotv/day-zero-episode-101-lethal-pilot-blipnew-5624752
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahmed Jaf, 9 Dec 2011 @ 3:38pm

Despite the fact that I agree that a camera is a tool, but these films cost a lot of money to be made in the first place.
Look at �Like Crazy�s cast!
Of course 28 days later was made with an XL1 so? who was his cast? what was his budget?
Give many talented wanna be directors half that budget and they can do something similar with an even better camera,
It�s not just the camera is the money and the talent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]